Christian worker in dismissal claim

A Christian nursery nurse is claiming unfair dismissal after losing her job because she said she told a gay colleague that the Bible regards the practice of homosexuality as a sin.

Sarah Mbuyi says she only made the comments after being pressed on her beliefs by a colleague who initiated the conversation at Newpark Childcare in Highbury, north London, in January.

She is being supported in her case by the Christian Legal Centre, whose chief executive, Andrea Williams, said the Government has "seriously let down" the Christian community and criticised Prime Minister David Cameron for attempting to "mould Christianity to his political agenda".

Ms Mbuyi, who is claiming unfair dismissal on grounds of religious discrimination, said : "When I said 'No, God does not condone the practice of homosexuality, but does love you and says you should come to Him as you are', she became emotional and went off to report me to my manager."

At an internal disciplinary hearing she says she was confronted with her colleague's allegations, which included the false claim that she herself had raised the issue of homosexuality on a number of occasions. T he nursery directors instantly dismissed her for gross misconduct.

Promoted stories

"My disciplinary hearing was hopelessly one-sided because they put my accuser's claims to me as fact, without any forewarning and so I wasn't prepared. It seemed to me they had already made up their minds to justify sacking me, before hearing my side of the story, " Ms Mbuyi added.

Barrister Ms Williams said that if Mr Cameron "is serious in his support for Christianity, he will intervene in Sarah's case".

She went on: "Sharing Biblical truths out of genuine love and concern for colleagues is being outlawed in the workplace by a dominating cultural correctness.

"There is a culture of fear which closes down freedom of speech and the manifestation of faith. This culture brands the liberating good news of the Gospel as oppressive and regressive.

"Sarah's case demonstrates the confusion we're experiencing in current times. David Cameron has given public recognition of the enormous positive impact that Jesus Christ has had on our nation but he wants to mould Christianity to his political agenda. History shows that Christianity is greater than any political agenda.

"David Cameron has ignored the concerns of the Christian community by driving through same-sex marriage. Any dissent in the public space, in the workplace, to the new prevailing orthodoxy means punishment as Sarah is experiencing.

"This is not a Government with a track record of recognising and respecting Christian faith. It has deliberately and consistently undermined Christians and their freedom to live out their faith in the public square."

Share article

Mr Cameron said earlier this week that Britain should be ''more confident about our status as a Christian country" and " more evangelical about a faith that compels us to get out there and make a difference to people's lives".

In an article for the Church Times he described himself as a ''classic'' member of the Church of England, ''not that regular in attendance, and a bit vague on some of the more difficult parts of the faith''.

Promoted Stories

Comments (3)

Before I say anything I must state I am an atheist and therefore hold no opinion on the fact the woman inn question is a Christian... However, I have to say, once again a immoral minority holds sway. If the woman believes her religion holds an antipathetic stance to the practice of homosexual behaviour, I see no reason why she cannot express that to any and all, especially someone who themselves admit to so practising their proclivity. If the damned homosexuals make their behaviour known, then I say that those who do not agree should likewise be allowed to express their disapproval. There is far too much over tolerance to these minority persons, who, for what can only be viewed as braggart reasons, make it known to all around they engage in practices that many, if not the vast majority find intolerable behaviour. The moral breakdown of the British state in overtly accepting this sort of behaviour, is becoming more and more intolerable to the ordinary person, most of whom have children that they do not wish to be 'turned' by this acceptance which could lead to the belief it is quite normal, when most think otherwise. Once again the State is flying in the face of the people, and in terminating the employment of someone for their belief the State is granting legal licence for behaviour many find unacceptable. The woman was it appears 'forced' into a conversation which led her to make comment another found unwarranted...tough on the other, the woman was right, and if anyone should have been dismissed it was the person who laid the complaint.

Before I say anything I must state I am an atheist and therefore hold no opinion on the fact the woman inn question is a Christian...
However, I have to say, once again a immoral minority holds sway.
If the woman believes her religion holds an antipathetic stance to the practice of homosexual behaviour, I see no reason why she cannot express that to any and all, especially someone who themselves admit to so practising their proclivity.
If the damned homosexuals make their behaviour known, then I say that those who do not agree should likewise be allowed to express their disapproval.
There is far too much over tolerance to these minority persons, who, for what can only be viewed as braggart reasons, make it known to all around they engage in practices that many, if not the vast majority find intolerable behaviour.
The moral breakdown of the British state in overtly accepting this sort of behaviour, is becoming more and more intolerable to the ordinary person, most of whom have children that they do not wish to be 'turned' by this acceptance which could lead to the belief it is quite normal, when most think otherwise.
Once again the State is flying in the face of the people, and in terminating the employment of someone for their belief the State is granting legal licence for behaviour many find unacceptable.
The woman was it appears 'forced' into a conversation which led her to make comment another found unwarranted...tough on the other, the woman was right, and if anyone should have been dismissed it was the person who laid the complaint.varteg1

Before I say anything I must state I am an atheist and therefore hold no opinion on the fact the woman inn question is a Christian... However, I have to say, once again a immoral minority holds sway. If the woman believes her religion holds an antipathetic stance to the practice of homosexual behaviour, I see no reason why she cannot express that to any and all, especially someone who themselves admit to so practising their proclivity. If the damned homosexuals make their behaviour known, then I say that those who do not agree should likewise be allowed to express their disapproval. There is far too much over tolerance to these minority persons, who, for what can only be viewed as braggart reasons, make it known to all around they engage in practices that many, if not the vast majority find intolerable behaviour. The moral breakdown of the British state in overtly accepting this sort of behaviour, is becoming more and more intolerable to the ordinary person, most of whom have children that they do not wish to be 'turned' by this acceptance which could lead to the belief it is quite normal, when most think otherwise. Once again the State is flying in the face of the people, and in terminating the employment of someone for their belief the State is granting legal licence for behaviour many find unacceptable. The woman was it appears 'forced' into a conversation which led her to make comment another found unwarranted...tough on the other, the woman was right, and if anyone should have been dismissed it was the person who laid the complaint.

Score: 1

Katie Re-Registered says...10:38am Sun 20 Apr 14

I'd be supportive of people's rights to express their religious and political opinions at work. However, I do find it somewhat hypocritical when certain religious types and right-wingers are unwilling to reciprocate and do not believe that I, as a transgender person, should not express my gender identity in the workplace. At the moment employment law is actually biased towards people who want to express their religious ideology at work. To give one example, an employer is not allowed to stop an employee wearing a cross to work, yet if - for example - a crossdresser wished to come to work in a skirt it is 100 per cent legal to fire that employee on the spot. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: surely the whole idea of equality is that it works both ways?

I'd be supportive of people's rights to express their religious and political opinions at work. However, I do find it somewhat hypocritical when certain religious types and right-wingers are unwilling to reciprocate and do not believe that I, as a transgender person, should not express my gender identity in the workplace. At the moment employment law is actually biased towards people who want to express their religious ideology at work. To give one example, an employer is not allowed to stop an employee wearing a cross to work, yet if - for example - a crossdresser wished to come to work in a skirt it is 100 per cent legal to fire that employee on the spot. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: surely the whole idea of equality is that it works both ways?Katie Re-Registered

I'd be supportive of people's rights to express their religious and political opinions at work. However, I do find it somewhat hypocritical when certain religious types and right-wingers are unwilling to reciprocate and do not believe that I, as a transgender person, should not express my gender identity in the workplace. At the moment employment law is actually biased towards people who want to express their religious ideology at work. To give one example, an employer is not allowed to stop an employee wearing a cross to work, yet if - for example - a crossdresser wished to come to work in a skirt it is 100 per cent legal to fire that employee on the spot. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: surely the whole idea of equality is that it works both ways?

Score: 1

varteg1 says...6:52pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Katie Re-Registered wrote…

I'd be supportive of people's rights to express their religious and political opinions at work. However, I do find it somewhat hypocritical when certain religious types and right-wingers are unwilling to reciprocate and do not believe that I, as a transgender person, should not express my gender identity in the workplace. At the moment employment law is actually biased towards people who want to express their religious ideology at work. To give one example, an employer is not allowed to stop an employee wearing a cross to work, yet if - for example - a crossdresser wished to come to work in a skirt it is 100 per cent legal to fire that employee on the spot. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: surely the whole idea of equality is that it works both ways?

The penalty for meddling with centuries of established social practice is the very thing you make issue of. IN less than a couple of decades, the social mores of Britain, as well as many other countries, have been mucked about with, thrown into total confusion, to the extent few, even those responsible for doing the meddling,now do not know which way to turn when a dispute or disparity occurs. Personally I couldn't give a toss of you came to work stark naked, I would be paying you to do a job, and beyond the safety factor, that is the wearing of protective apparel, what you do or do not wear would be up to you. That said, should you face the likely ridicule from others who find your stance immature and beyond rational, then so be it. You make your bed, lie in it.

[quote][p][bold]Katie Re-Registered[/bold] wrote:
I'd be supportive of people's rights to express their religious and political opinions at work. However, I do find it somewhat hypocritical when certain religious types and right-wingers are unwilling to reciprocate and do not believe that I, as a transgender person, should not express my gender identity in the workplace. At the moment employment law is actually biased towards people who want to express their religious ideology at work. To give one example, an employer is not allowed to stop an employee wearing a cross to work, yet if - for example - a crossdresser wished to come to work in a skirt it is 100 per cent legal to fire that employee on the spot. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: surely the whole idea of equality is that it works both ways?[/p][/quote]The penalty for meddling with centuries of established social practice is the very thing you make issue of.
IN less than a couple of decades, the social mores of Britain, as well as many other countries, have been mucked about with, thrown into total confusion, to the extent few, even those responsible for doing the meddling,now do not know which way to turn when a dispute or disparity occurs.
Personally I couldn't give a toss of you came to work stark naked, I would be paying you to do a job, and beyond the safety factor, that is the wearing of protective apparel, what you do or do not wear would be up to you.
That said, should you face the likely ridicule from others who find your stance immature and beyond rational, then so be it.
You make your bed, lie in it.varteg1

Katie Re-Registered wrote…

I'd be supportive of people's rights to express their religious and political opinions at work. However, I do find it somewhat hypocritical when certain religious types and right-wingers are unwilling to reciprocate and do not believe that I, as a transgender person, should not express my gender identity in the workplace. At the moment employment law is actually biased towards people who want to express their religious ideology at work. To give one example, an employer is not allowed to stop an employee wearing a cross to work, yet if - for example - a crossdresser wished to come to work in a skirt it is 100 per cent legal to fire that employee on the spot. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: surely the whole idea of equality is that it works both ways?

The penalty for meddling with centuries of established social practice is the very thing you make issue of. IN less than a couple of decades, the social mores of Britain, as well as many other countries, have been mucked about with, thrown into total confusion, to the extent few, even those responsible for doing the meddling,now do not know which way to turn when a dispute or disparity occurs. Personally I couldn't give a toss of you came to work stark naked, I would be paying you to do a job, and beyond the safety factor, that is the wearing of protective apparel, what you do or do not wear would be up to you. That said, should you face the likely ridicule from others who find your stance immature and beyond rational, then so be it. You make your bed, lie in it.

Score: 0

Sorry, an error occurred.

Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the 'report this post' link.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here